War on Poverty hits 50

posted at 1:21 pm on January 8, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty — a war that has lasted longer than the War on Drugs (declared by Richard Nixon), and several real wars, including the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam War and the Bush/Obama Afghanistan war. On this date in 1964, LBJ called on Congress to deliver activist programs designed to alleviate and eventually eliminate poverty in the US in his State of the Union speech. Fifty years later, we are about to get another SOTU speech on income inequality and poverty from an American President intent on expanding transfer programs (welfare, primarily) in order to reinvigorate the fight.

Does this tell us anything about the success of LBJ’s war? NRO’s symposium calls it a failure, one easily predicted from the forms it took, but Hoover Institution fellow Chester E. Finn recalls that it didn’t have to take the form of transfer programs:

Lyndon Johnson’s oft-stated conviction that education was the surest route to vanquishing poverty engaged both the do-gooder inclinations of a 20-year-old and reflected what I was seeing among children in poor neighborhoods of Cambridge and Boston and the miserable schools they attended.

Between LBJ and Pat Moynihan, I now had a sense of mission. So I applied to the ed school instead of the law school. And on it went from there.

In retrospect, I have no career regrets, but I’ve also learned a ton about the limits of formal education (which makes up a relatively small part of a person’s life); about the difficulty of changing our major institutions; about the hazards of inflating what Uncle Sam, in particular, can do to bring about such changes; about the predilection of our politics to place adult interests ahead of children’s; and about poverty’s dogged capacity to defeat just about every intervention that a free society can devise.

In his biography of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, The Gentleman from New York, Godfrey Hodgson offers this summary of one of the men deeply involved in building what Johnson called The Great Society. While never abandoning his faith in the capacity and the duty of government to make society better, Hodgson argues, Moynihan “acquired a profound doubt about the central paradigm of liberal government: the assumption that social scientists should identify a need, devise a program of government action to meet that need and supervise the application of public money to the sore place through the ministrations of enlightened bureaucracy.”

By 1969, in a memorandum to President Nixon on the rise of welfare in New York and elsewhere, Moynihan wrote, “I believe the time has come for a President to state what increasingly is understood: that welfare as we know it is a bankrupt and destructive system…. It is also necessary to state that no one really understands why and how all this has happened.” And Moynihan’s great friend, the eminent social scientist James Q. Wilson, when asked about Moynihan’s increasing skepticism of the efficacy of government intervention in almost all circumstances, said this:

He always believes that the job of politics is to help those who can’t help themselves. But he has a scholar’s reluctance to accept the proposition that the government knows very much about how to help people who can’t help themselves.

When all that is required is to transfer money from person A to person B, as in the social security system, it works very well, and Pat has been a staunch defender of social security. But when it has to alter their character, when it has to alter whether men marry women with whom they begat a child, or when it has to reduce the crime rate, or has to deal with student radicalism, the fact of the matter is that government doesn’t know much what to do.

Fifteen percent of Americans still live in poverty, according to the official census poverty report for 2012, unchanged since the mid-1960s. Liberals argue that we aren’t spending enough money on poverty-fighting programs, but that’s not the problem. In reality, we’re losing the war on poverty because we have forgotten the original goal, as LBJ stated it half a century ago: “to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities.”

The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans. Government spent $916 billion on these programs in 2012 alone, and roughly 100 million Americans received aid from at least one of them, at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. (That figure doesn’t include Social Security or Medicare benefits.) Federal and state welfare spending, adjusted for inflation, is 16 times greater than it was in 1964. If converted to cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all official poverty in the U.S.

LBJ promised that the war on poverty would be an “investment” that would “return its cost manifold to the entire economy.” But the country has invested $20.7 trillion in 2011 dollars over the past 50 years. What does America have to show for its investment? Apparently, almost nothing: The official poverty rate persists with little improvement.

In 2005, the typical poor household, as defined by the federal government, had air conditioning and a car. For entertainment, the household had two color TVs, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player and a VCR. In the kitchen, it had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker. The family was able to obtain medical care when needed. Their home was not overcrowded and was in good repair. By its own report, the family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

The overwhelming majority of Americans do not regard a family living in these conditions as poor. For example, a poll conducted in June 2009 asked a nationally representative sample of the public whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “A family in the U.S. that has a decent, un-crowded house or apartment to live in, ample food to eat, access to medical care, a car, cable TV, air conditioning and a microwave at home should not be considered poor.” A full 80 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Democrats agreed that a family living in those living conditions should not be considered poor.

With this in mind, it’s actually apparent that we largely won the war on poverty — while wasting trillions of dollars on counter-effectual government programs and larding up the federal bureaucracy.

What government proposes now isn’t poverty any longer, but fighting unequal distribution. That’s not to say that true poverty has vanished from the scene in America, but it does call into question the damage being done to the American economy by government redistribution, both through seizure and through corrosive debt, to service an ever-wider target. If we stopped the massive borrowing and narrowed spending to those truly living in poverty based on living standards, we could redirect those resources back into private sector investment, create more jobs, and see poverty reduced through natural economic means.

That would allow us to declare victory without really retreating from the actual front — and it would incentivize the able to put their energy and creativity to work while safeguarding the truly needy. In the parlance of the original analogy, we need to find ways to use smart targeting rather than carpet bombing, and find ways to save the village that doesn’t involve destroying it.

I wonder if people could be encouraged to go back to school as adults. And by back to school, I mean all the way back to elementary school. We have people who were in far from optimal situations as children who should be encouraged to go back to square one.

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”—LBJ

One has to wonder if Republicans will ever acknowledge that the majority of employed black urban residents in the sixties worked at factory jobs that rapidly disappeared in the 70s and 80s. Acknowledging this undeniable fact does ugly things to the mythos that “welfare” increased unemployment in the inner city. As if black workers voluntarily took themselves out of the formal economy, rather than they were victims of globalizations impact on domestic manufacturing. Then again, since we know conservatives are unable to draw a connection between MNCs and American unemployment, it seems unlikely that the nonsensical claims that welfare “created” poverty will be challenged in their bedraggled minds.

Epic failure unless you are dem lib, they just created a permanent voting block is all and now they want to expand it with immigration reform if you can call it that. Think of what they could have done with that money…

“These N______, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”—LBJ

As if black workers voluntarily took themselves out of the formal economy, rather than they were victims of globalizations impact on domestic manufacturing. Then again, since we know conservatives are unable to draw a connection between MNCs and American unemployment, it seems unlikely that the nonsensical claims that welfare “created” poverty will be challenged in their bedraggled minds.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Partial fool – why do you then not condemn amnesty? They eat your lunch, literally.

One has to wonder if Republicans will ever acknowledge that the majority of employed black urban residents in the sixties worked at factory jobs that rapidly disappeared in the 70s and 80s. Acknowledging this undeniable fact…

One has to wonder if Republicans will ever acknowledge that the majority of employed black urban residents in the sixties worked at factory jobs that rapidly disappeared in the 70s and 80s.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:32 PM

One has to wonder if Democrats will ever acknowledge that when those urban factory jobs for blacks disappeared in the 70s and 80s, their political Party had been in total charge of those cities for decades. And did nothing to stop the decline.

Del, why companies moved is actually immaterial to the fact that job flight explains mounting black poverty after the civil rights movement and the creation of the War on Poverty. You can even think that it was good that manufacturers took their operations overseas, it’s still a flat out lie that welfare programs *produced* unemployment. What produced unemployment was the evacuation of employers.

Of course not. But do conservatives blame welfare for poverty and crime in white communities? Of course not, they blame government policies which “drove jobs away.” So for one group their poverty is their own fault, but the other group are victims of political economy. Even though the sources of unemployment are exactly the same. One wonders why the right had never noticed this obvious intellectual inconsistency.

One has to wonder if Republicans will ever acknowledge that the majority of employed black urban residents in the sixties worked at factory jobs that rapidly disappeared in the 70s and 80s. Acknowledging this undeniable fact does ugly things to the mythos that “welfare” increased unemployment in the inner city. As if black workers voluntarily took themselves out of the formal economy, rather than they were victims of globalizations impact on domestic manufacturing. Then again, since we know conservatives are unable to draw a connection between MNCs and American unemployment, it seems unlikely that the nonsensical claims that welfare “created” poverty will be challenged in their bedraggled minds.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Welfare didn’t “create” poverty but it kept people there. Liberal policies also prevented American industry from staying competitive so those black urban people could find other and more productive work.
Or maybe we need WWIII to destroy all other industrial capacity in the world to recreate the American economy of the 50’s and 60’s to recreate the economic utopia liberals like to opine about.

And liberals are loathe to admit that a bigger factor in poverty than loss of factory jobs to the plight of poor people is the sexual revolution and other progressive cultural pushes which have destroyed the family and other civic institutions that supported people.

Of course not. But do conservatives blame welfare for poverty and crime in white communities? Of course not, they blame government policies which “drove jobs away.” So for one group their poverty is their own fault, but the other group are victims of political economy. Even though the sources of unemployment are exactly the same. One wonders why the right had never noticed this obvious intellectual inconsistency.

Del, your question IS irrelevant to the question of whether the War on Poverty and welfare is the cause of increases in black poverty after the 1960s. But I know, I know, once anyone calls out your re-framing of the goal posts/question they are accuse of alinsky-whatever and the debate is over.

Del, why companies moved is actually immaterial to the fact that job flight explains mounting black poverty after the civil rights movement and the creation of the War on Poverty. You can even think that it was good that manufacturers took their operations overseas, it’s still a flat out lie that welfare programs *produced* unemployment. What produced unemployment was the evacuation of employers.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:40 PM

It’s not a lie to say that welfare programs produced unemployment. There is a natural and unpreventable flux of employment and unemployment but welfare was a big part of locking people into poverty and unemployment (as well as other liberal policies which sucked the energy out of an economy to provide real opportunity).

LBJ’s war on poverty and great society programs were nothing more than federal government expansionist schemes to redistribute wealth. While real poverty does exist in some places, there are just a lot of people who want to be taken care of by the government and “want theirs” from people who actually are productive citizens. The idea of $15/hour is nothing more than people wanting to take more from the system at a McJob, rather than getting educated and working up to a livable wage. We are going the way of the Romans.

Of course not. But do conservatives blame welfare for poverty and crime in white communities? Of course not, they blame government policies which “drove jobs away.” So for one group their poverty is their own fault, but the other group are victims of political economy. Even though the sources of unemployment are exactly the same. One wonders why the right had never noticed this obvious intellectual inconsistency.

In 2005, the typical poor household, as defined by the federal government, had air conditioning and a car. For entertainment, the household had two color TVs, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player and a VCR. In the kitchen, it had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker. The family was able to obtain medical care when needed. Their home was not overcrowded and was in good repair. By its own report, the family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

And how much of that was thanks to government programs and spending, versus free market increases in efficiency, productivity, and wealth-creation?

How much better could we have done if the government hadn’t been sapping the strength of private enterprise and initiative to the tune of $20,000,000,000,000 over the past half-century?

“These N______, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”—LBJ

SICK…

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on January 8, 2014 at 1:33 PM

“These Negroes“…
LBJ wasn’t above using the ‘N’ word, but didn’t in this quote, as you imply.
Not saying it does much at all to improve the quote…but always best to be factual.

Its an endless war that will continue to be fought. It’ll hit 100 and we’ll still be engaged. Poverty will always exist, just as it has for the past 2 centuries, even with government programs, which can never do enough.

It’s not a lie to say that welfare programs produced unemployment. There is a natural and unpreventable flux of employment and unemployment but welfare was a big part of locking people into poverty and unemployment (as well as other liberal policies which sucked the energy out of an economy to provide real opportunity).
gwelf on January 8, 2014 at 1:47 PM

A: many of the sentences in that paragraph make no sense.
B: there’s an easy test to your claim. Locate a place where welfare benefits increased, but employers did not leave en masse. If poverty still increased, then clearly welfare is the key factor in expanding black poverty after the 1960s.

It is a mega disastrous failure on every level… War on poverty created the permanent parasitic and lazy welfare class… where many in this class are the third generation welfare parasites in their families… It has totally destroyed the majority of blacks in America to the point where there is no hope for them ever to be productive even a tiny bit…

Del, why companies moved is actually immaterial to the fact that job flight explains mounting black poverty after the civil rights movement and the creation of the War on Poverty. You can even think that it was good that manufacturers took their operations overseas, it’s still a flat out lie that welfare programs *produced* unemployment. What produced unemployment was the evacuation of employers.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Why companies moved out of cities and overseas is EXACTLY the material question that needs to be answered in order to reduce poverty.
Can you (honestly) answer the question – Why did companies move overseas?

Then again, since we know conservatives are unable to draw a connection between MNCs and American unemployment, it seems unlikely that the nonsensical claims that welfare “created” poverty will be challenged in their bedraggled minds.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:32 PM

I am so sick of your whining and belly-aching. This is the greatest country in the world for pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Keep clinging to excuses. You’ll never amount to anything if it requires someone else to putting you there.

The problem is that libtards think that if Person A lives in a $75,000 home and has a 42″ lcd tv, and Person B lives in a $750,000 home and has a 60″ lcd tv, then Person A is “poor” and requires the government to give them the funds to buy the 60″ lcd tv. Obutthead’s goal is to make sure that the government also gives Person A the $750,000 home. What he will succeed in will be to cause both Person A and Person B to live in $10 refrigerator boxes.

A: many of the sentences in that paragraph make no sense.
B: there’s an easy test to your claim. Locate a place where welfare benefits increased, but employers did not leave en masse. If poverty still increased, then clearly welfare is the key factor in expanding black poverty after the 1960s.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Here it is. Again.

Liberal political policies and cultural pushes:
1. devastated the family – the single best institution for determining prosperity in life
2. was a big factor in employers fleeing from A to B
3. keeping people in poverty after they lost their jobs (see #2)

One has to wonder if Republicans will ever acknowledge that the majority of employed black urban residents in the sixties worked at factory jobs that rapidly disappeared in the 70s and 80s. Acknowledging this undeniable fact does ugly things to the mythos that “welfare” increased unemployment in the inner city. As if black workers voluntarily took themselves out of the formal economy, rather than they were victims of globalizations impact on domestic manufacturing. Then again, since we know conservatives are unable to draw a connection between MNCs and American unemployment, it seems unlikely that the nonsensical claims that welfare “created” poverty will be challenged in their bedraggled minds.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:32 PM

How nice of you to paint that picture with a quill brush. Here, grab this. It’s a FAT brush. Now include whites, latinos, and other colors to your picture. They suffered job losses along with the blacks too…I thought liberals were sensitive to all races.

Fifty years later, we are about to get another SOTU speech on income inequality and poverty from an American President intent on expanding transfer programs (welfare, primarily) in order to reinvigorate the fight.
=======================

Super, a Holier Than Thou Social InJustice Warrior,
NeverEnding Demonization of the Filthy Rich, who, no
doubt, in the Lefty Mindset, see as holding back, and
keeping the POOR DOWN!!

Del, why companies moved is actually immaterial to the fact that job flight explains mounting black poverty after the civil rights movement and the creation of the War on Poverty. You can even think that it was good that manufacturers took their operations overseas, it’s still a flat out lie that welfare programs *produced* unemployment. What produced unemployment was the evacuation of employers.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Total BS as always coming from Low IQ liberals… First of all, manufacturers taking their operations overseas start occurring in the 90’s and beyond and that is thirty year after declaring the war on poverty… Second why is it only a black problem is manufacturing moved overseas? In fact the super vast majority of manufacturing jobs, including the blue collar ones, were, are, and will always be held by non blacks… So if manufacturing moved overseas then it is going to affect whites at much larger scale than blacks… Third, it is very clear from every fact and statistics that blacks are the highest rate of welfare recipients and by far…. Blacks are only 13% of the population but they make almost 40% of the welfare recipients…

As if black workers voluntarily took themselves out of the formal economy, rather than they were victims of globalizations impact on domestic manufacturing.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Well if they sat in the cities and didn’t try to find work, which is what happened, then they did take themselves out of the formal economy voluntarily. White workers lost jobs in factories too and they did’t become worthless parasites who don’t even try to contribute to society.

So, at five times the rate,..the Left still needs more Lootery
for the InJustuce Battle-Field!!
================================

The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans.

Government spent $916 billion on these programs in 2012 alone, and roughly 100 million Americans received aid from at least one of them, at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. (That figure doesn’t include Social Security or Medicare benefits.) Federal and state welfare spending, adjusted for inflation, is 16 times greater than it was in 1964.

If converted to cash,

current means-tested spending

is five times the amount needed to eliminate all official poverty in the U.S.

And some of it did make it into the hands of the impoverished. Just enough to keep them impoverished……after the corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and their cronies took their substantial cuts for management and distribution expenses.

And some of it did make it into the hands of the impoverished. Just enough to keep them impoverished……after the corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and their cronies took their substantial cuts for management and distribution expenses.

One has to wonder if Republicans will ever acknowledge that the majority of employed black urban residents in the sixties worked at factory jobs that rapidly disappeared in the 70s and 80s. Acknowledging this undeniable fact does ugly things to the mythos that “welfare” increased unemployment in the inner city. As if black workers voluntarily took themselves out of the formal economy, rather than they were victims of globalizations impact on domestic manufacturing.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:32 PM

.
Most American blue-collar employees “in the sixties worked at factory jobs that rapidly disappeared in the 70s and 80s.”